KEY SEIGMA FINDINGS & POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR …...Jan 12, 2016 · Key Finding Potential...
Transcript of KEY SEIGMA FINDINGS & POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR …...Jan 12, 2016 · Key Finding Potential...
KEY SEIGMA FINDINGS &
POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR
STRATEGIC PLANNERS IN MA
A presentation to the Public Health Trust Fund
Executive Committee
By: Rachel Volberg & Amanda Houpt
January 12, 2016
BACKGROUNDRationale
Research Questions
Research Activities
MA Strategic Plan for PG Prevention and Treatment
Overview of the White Paper
Rationale
• Research mandate includes:
• Implementing a baseline study of problem gambling and the
existing prevention and treatment programs that address its
harmful consequences
• Primary goal:
• Use findings to make scientifically-based recommendations to
maintain and enhance problem gambling prevention and treatment
in Massachusetts
Evaluation of PG Services
Research Questions
1. How many problem gamblers in Massachusetts desire treatment and how many seek treatment?
2. Where do problem gamblers go to receive treatment in Massachusetts?
3. What barriers exist to treatment-seeking?
4. What problem gambling prevention and treatment services currently exist in Massachusetts?
5. How aware is the general public of existing problem gambling prevention initiatives?
6. What is known about the effectiveness of existing problem gambling treatment and prevention services in Massachusetts?
7. How well do current problem gambling prevention and treatment services in Massachusetts match up to best practices in problem gambling prevention?
Research Activities
• Analysis of SEIGMA survey data
• Baseline Population Survey
• Online Panel Survey
• Analysis of MCCG Problem Gambling Helpline data
• Analysis of medical claims data from the Center for Health
Information and Analysis (CHIA)
• All Payer Claims Database
• Acute Hospital Case Mix
• Online focus group with treatment providers
MA Strategic Plan for PG Prevention and
Treatment
• MA DPH contracted with Education Development Center’s
(EDC) Massachusetts Technical Partnership for
Prevention to develop a strategic plan for problem
gambling services in MA
• The resulting strategic plan:
• Provides an overview of existing PG-related services in MA
• Provides recommendations for how best to utilize the PHTF
• Incorporates many of the key findings and potential implications
identified in the SEIGMA white paper
Overview of the White Paper
• Summarizes key findings from 3 research activities for
which full or partial analyses are complete:
1. Descriptive statistics from a large baseline population survey
2. Descriptive analysis of data from the Massachusetts Council on
Compulsive Gambling’s (MCCG) Problem Gambling Helpline
3. An online focus group that the SEIGMA team recently conducted
with a group of mental health and substance abuse treatment
providers across the state
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH
ACTIVITIES & KEY FINDINGSBaseline Population Survey
Analysis of MCCG Helpline Data
Online Focus Group
Baseline Population Survey
Methods in Brief• Measured attitudes about gambling, gambling
participation, problem gambling prevalence, awareness of
problem gambling prevention efforts, treatment desire,
and treatment-seeking among MA adults aged 18+
• Sample drawn from a list of addresses
• Respondents could complete online, on paper, or by
telephone
• Data collected from Sept. 2013 – May 2014
• Response rate of ~37%
• Sample size of ~10,000
Baseline Population Survey
Summary of Key Findings• Moderate attitudes about gambling availability & impacts
• High rates of gambling participation
• Lottery, raffles, & casinos most common forms of gambling
• Demographic differences in gambling participation & motivation
• Prevalence rates of at-risk and problem gambling are 7.5% and 1.7%, respectively
• Demographic differences in at-risk and problem gambling
• Low rates of prevention awareness
• Low rates of help- and treatment-seeking for gambling problems
Analysis of MCCG Helpline Data
Background• MCCG runs a 24/7 toll-free Problem Gambling Helpline
• Responders offer information and referrals for self-help, formal
treatment, support groups, and other community resources
• To the extent possible, responders collect the following
information about each call
• Time of call
• Type of caller (i.e., gambler or concerned other)
• Reason for the call
• Referrals made
• Characteristics of the caller (e.g., socio-demographics, residence,
primary gambling type, preferred gambling venue)
• Data collection is not the primary goal of helpline responders
Analysis of MCCG Helpline Data
Methods in Brief
• SEIGMA executed an MOU with MCCG
• MCCG shared 17 years of data with SEIGMA
• Due to variations in data completeness, the SEIGMA team
sub-setted the data
• SEIGMA analyzed data from 2009-2013
• Subset included 4,574 calls
Analysis of MCCG Helpline Data
Summary of Key Findings • From 2009-2013, helpline calls generally decreased while
hits to the MCCG website dramatically increased
• Majority (69%) called about their own gambling behavior
• Remainder were concerned about someone else’s gambling
• Majority of gambler callers were middle-aged men
• Majority of concerned others were women
• Most common reasons for seeking help were financial problems, emotional health issues, and relationship issues
• MCCG made ~900 referrals to state-run treatment centers
• MCCG also made ~2600 referrals to other sources
Online Focus Group
Methods in Brief• SEIGMA contracted with Market Street Research to
conduct an online focus group with treatment providers
• Participants recruited from a list of individuals who completed or were in progress of completing the MAPGS Certificate
• To participate, an individual had to:• Be licensed to provide mental health or substance abuse treatment
services in MA
• See a minimum of 5 clients per week
• Practice in at least one MA county
• A total of 35 providers enrolled in the focus group • 32 participated
• Focus group took place from June 23 – 25, 2015
Online Focus Group
Summary of Key Findings • Providers use a variety of screening tools in various
different ways
• Providers set treatment goals and evaluate treatment
outcomes in different ways
• Providers differ in their opinions regarding treatment goals
and outcomes
• Providers have a number of unmet needs
• Desire for skills-based clinical training opportunities
• Desire to be part of a community of practice
• Desire for clinical supervision and mentorship
• Greater ability to track/evaluate/improve client outcomes
• More outreach to raise awareness about available services
COMMON THEMES &
RECOMMENDATIONSCommon Themes
Suggested Priority Activities
Common Themes Identified
• Information about gambling behavior and problems in
Massachusetts can be used to tailor prevention messages
and target outreach efforts
• At-risk and problem gambling prevalence estimates and
information about concerned others can be used to
estimate treatment volume and plan for treatment-seekers
• Improved data collection regarding help- and treatment-
seekers in the Commonwealth is needed
• Improved problem gambling service administration is
needed—clinical supervision, best practices, standardized
practices, evaluation, etc.
Suggested Priority Activities
1. Utilize the findings presented in the white paper to tailor
prevention messages and target outreach efforts
2. Improve data collection about individuals who seek help or
treatment for a gambling problem
3. Collect additional information to aid in selecting evidence-based
and promising practices in problem gambling prevention,
intervention and treatment, and adapt these practices for use in
Massachusetts
Utilizing Data to Tailor Prevention
Messages and Target Outreach Efforts
A Few Examples from the White Paper
Key Finding Potential Implication
Lottery, raffles, & casino
gambling are the most
common forms of gambling in
MA.
Prevention messages can be tailored
to reflect common gambling behaviors
Gambling motivation differs
among different demographic
groups
Prevention messages can be tailored
to reflect common motivations
At-risk and problem gambling
prevalence rates differ among
different demographic groups
Outreach efforts can be targeted to
vulnerable groups and messages
tailored to ensure cultural
appropriateness
Improving Data Collection re: Help- and
Treatment-seekers in MA
However, none of these sources provides a reliable
estimate of the number of individuals who have sought
treatment for a gambling problem in MA.
Source Information Provided
Baseline Population
Survey
• Estimate # of at-risk and PGs in MA
• Demographic profile of these adults
• Common co-occurring conditions
MCCG Helpline Data • Insight into the # of help-seekers in MA
• Reasons callers seek help
• Referrals made to helpline callers
Online Focus Group • Problem gambling treatment practices used
• Unmet needs of treatment providers
Understanding & Adapting Evidence-
Based and Promising Practices for MA • The strategic plan that EDC has developed emphasizes
the importance of selecting and adapting evidence-based
and promising practices in problem gambling prevention
and treatment for use in Massachusetts
• Strategic planners should seek information regarding:
• Best practices in problem gambling prevention
• State models for administering problem gambling services and
providing clinical supervision
• Screening best practices
• Effective treatments for problem gambling
• Best practices in evaluating problem gambling treatment outcomes
AREAS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCHIndividuals with Gambling Problems
Screening Practices
Problem Gambling Support Groups
Better Understanding of Individuals with
Gambling Problems • The literature offers some insight into this population
• Qualitative research may be needed to better understand
the lived experiences of Massachusetts adults who are
experiencing gambling problems
• Problem gamblers who have and have not sought help or treatment
• Individuals concerned about/affected by someone else’s gambling
• Such activities may clarify:
• The level of desire for help and treatment within these populations
• The barriers that these populations face in seeking help &
treatment
• Possible facilitators to help- and treatment-seeking
Better Understanding of Current PG
Screening Practices • Establishing a standardized screening process will likely
be essential to effectively monitor the # of PGs in the MA
treatment system
• More information is needed regarding:
• Providers’ comfort using PG screening tools
• Barriers providers face in using PG screening tools
• Perceptions about the impact of these tools on their treatment
practices
• Perceptions about the effectiveness of these tools
• If a standardized tool is selected, it should be piloted with
treatment providers to ensure widespread adoption
Additional Information about PG Support
Groups in MA
• Helpline responders and treatment providers commonly
refer individuals to support groups such as Gamblers
Anonymous and Gam-Anon
• Very little information is available about these groups
• Better understanding may further clarify help-seeking
behaviors in the state
SUMMARY &
CONCLUSIONThank you for your time!
Next Steps for SEIGMA
• Analyses currently underway:
• Deeper analysis of Baseline Population Survey
• Analysis of Online Panel Survey
• Analysis of All Payer Claims Data
• Findings from these efforts may reveal additional
information relevant to state strategic planners
• SEIGMA will release findings as they become available
For More Information:
SEIGMA Website
www.umass.edu/seigma
Amanda Houpt
SEIGMA Project Manager
(413) 577-7409